Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday January 07, 2011 @06:18PM
from the as-long-as-cows-are-still-treated-as-delicious dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Dolphins have long been recognized as among the most intelligent of animals, but now the Times reports that a series of behavioral studies suggest that dolphins, especially species such as the bottlenose, have distinct personalities, a strong sense of self, can think about the future and are so bright that they should be treated as 'non-human persons.' 'Many dolphin brains are larger than our own and second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size,' says Lori Marino, a zoologist at Emory University. 'The neuroanatomy suggests psychological continuity between humans and dolphins and has profound implications for the ethics of human-dolphin interactions.' For example, one study found that dolphins can recognize their image in a mirror as a reflection of themselves — a finding that indicates self-awareness similar to that seen in higher primates and elephants. Other studies have found that dolphins are capable of advanced cognitive abilities such as problem-solving, artificial language comprehension, and complex social behavior, indicating that dolphins are far more intellectually and emotionally sophisticated than previously thought. Thomas White, professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University, has written a series of academic studies suggesting dolphins should have rights, claiming that the current relationship between humans and dolphins is, in effect, equivalent to the relationship between whites and black slaves two centuries ago."

I think we should have standards for how we treat them, but I think that comparing the situation to slavery is somewhat over-the-top. Though it's really hard to think of some objective way of deciding just what rights they should have.

I think, maybe, we should just ask, if we can figure out how. Of course, then there's the morass of objectively identifying and interpreting communication.:-)

Well that's kind of a silly standard. Most technology is ultimately based on at least one of two things: the opposable thumb (needed for dextrously manipulating one's environment, exceptions such as an elephant's nose notwithstanding) and fire (and its natural descendent electricity).

By your standard, a person in a coma or an infant are not to be granted rights.

Persons in coma and infants have behind them a lot of humans that like them and want to give them rights.

It's very simple with dolphins. They will get rights right when either:a) When we humans will just give them rights because it's no big deal/cost for as and we'll just feel like it;b) They successfully fight for them.

Just as for any other rights-gaining example in the history - rights of different ethnicities and races, rights of women, rights of lower social classes. Any 'universal' or 'natural' or 'una

What can they do? All the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. Mankind, on the other hand, has achieved so much – the wheel, New York, wars and so on. Clearly, we are much more intelligent.

People seem to think dolphins are happy smiling human-equivalents that spend all day frolicking in the water and occasionally hunt for fish. Similarly, apes are just peaceful vegetarians who live in the trees and pick nits out of each other's hair.

In reality, both dolphins and apes (and chimpanzees) are - as they'd say in the old days - brutes and spend their days waring with each other, pillaging for spoils and that includes the females.

In short, the concept of "human rights" makes no sense in a world without law. What's law? In my best Spock voice: To bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, so that the strong should not harm the weak. If you want your favorite higher mammals to have the same rights as us, then guess what, they have the same responsibilities as us too.

Seriously though, the the thing that created New York was our opposable thumbs. Without them, New York would likely be muck. And despite having limited appendages, dolphins do hunt in groups, even ON LAND (shore lines). They even have oral history and tribal (pods) dialects for communication. Dolphins are surprisingly complex and intelligent animals, seemingly limited by their physical shape and lack of digits; specifically thumbs.

For what its worth, some research seems to hint that octopi are nearly as intelligent as dolphin. Yet, what sets them apart in a human's mind is a dolphin's physical ability to vocalize. Which basically makes them more accessible for research and easier to relate.

For what its worth, some research seems to hint that octopi are nearly as intelligent as dolphin. Yet, what sets them apart in a human's mind is a dolphin's physical ability to vocalize. Which basically makes them [...] easier to relate.

Or maybe it's just that octopi don't look like they're smiling all the time.

They die at three years old. They're pretty smart.. The neuron argument is kinda bunk-- read "is your brain really necessary" by Roger Lewin, about John Lorber's work.
Brainpower is tricky, and throwing around words like sentient is kinda silly, when there isn't a good test for it anyway.

Maybe funny, but it's not so different from us in some ways. We focus on trivial stuff while not paying attention to real dangers. Why do we have to have laws against texting while driving? Why do we eat until our health suffers? Why do we watch TV while ignoring what our kids are learning or not learning in school? Stuff like that.

Sadly, that's how many think. I'm afraid of what these people think "giving the dolphins rights" even means. The only dolphins without undisturbed rights are the ones that are not trained to entertain and the only way to find out if they like that life is to ask them...

I just don't understand how you can "give" an already free animal (entertaining ones excluded...) rights.

Can you imagine being so happy with your current life that you felt no need to arbitrarily impose order and restriction upon your surroundings? Are you sure you are the more intelligent creature?

Think about it: dolphins don't have opposable thumbs with which they could arbitrarily impose upon their surroundings. Sounds pretty frustrating. If I were stuck in a dolphin's body with a human level intelligence it would drive me nuts that I couldn't make (or hold) something to ward off sharks.

Do dolphins try to escape captivity? It's something humans do if they're where they don't want to be, so if it happens we might be able to conclude something about what the dolphins want.

Secondly: You're wrong about race. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Race is entirely arbitrary and socially constructed. Brazilians, for example, tend to delineate race differently from Americans. So someone might be thought of as "black" in the US but as "white" in Brazil. Has anything changed about them? No. (getting this second hand from a very good anthropology professor, here).

If you try to delineate race based on skin color, you quickly run into problems. Some people of Asiatic descent have very dark skin; some Africans have light skin. The San people- African- often have epicanthic eye folds (think "asian eyes"), but they're not Asian. And on and on, with any combination of characteristics. Even the most modern genetic tests can't tell you someone's race (otherwise, Americans and Brazilians would agree on what race someone is, every time). Yes, you can make very good guesses about someone's ancestry with DNA markers, but that's not race.

"all blacks have similar features" is simply, again, wrong. It's not a matter of interpretation. People of African descent are actually more varied than everyone else, because only a relatively few humans made it out of Africa in the initial emigration. Africans are the most genetically diverse, because they didn't lose the genes that didn't come along for the ride out of Africa.

If you grant dolphins "personhood" (whatever that means), then you've got to do the same thing with chimps. And probably orang-utans. And then maybe whales and elephants too.

My suggestion is that we grant them this personhood when they ask for it. When they're able to ask for it, then it's obvious they deserve it. Until then, there's a huge gap between what humans are capable of and what various smart animals are capable of.

This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

This is awfully absurd. Maybe they are already asking to be let out of Seaworld and all the other cages we keep them in. Perhaps we aren't capable of understanding them? Does one simply ignore all signs of intelligence because we simply enjoy their tricks? Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

Indeed. So are you really surprised that someone should suggest that some other being doesn't deserve rights because of their own ignorance?

Your suggestion in many ways is how slavery was justified by stating that the slaves were somehow an inferior animal.

No. Slaves were fully human, and humans already had "personhood". Not just that, but slaves have asked for freedom. And even when they didn't speak the same language, they were still able to express their displeasure over their captivity. (Although I seem to recall a story about a circus with African elephants that were also clearly unhappy about their captivity, no matter their treatment. And yes, that means they tore the place down, and probably got shot.)

In any case, I'm all for treating animals with respect, and letting them live in their own habitats rather than captivity. But giving them human rights simply because they might be slightly smarter than some other animals is just silly.

This is not meant as a troll...
My grandmother from South Africa went to a town meeting (many decades ago). After the town meeting there was some socialising. One white woman had a proper conversation with a black woman for the very first time in her life... and ended up very shocked and traumatised. The black woman was talking about how she was worried that her son wasn't studying hard enough at school and other such things. Just like (shock, horror)... a real per

Grant personhood only to those who ask for it? The protectors of the coma wards and unborn human fetuses are going to hate that.

That's the problem with personhood tests: not all humans can pass them, unless you set the bar so low that even most chickens can pass it. The only patch is to add unsatisfying arbitrary clauses, like whitelisting anything with human DNA. (Wait, how much human DNA?) But if you're going to arbitrarily whitelist some species, then you might as well throw out the test altogether, a

How do you know what the gap is? I suppose it's easier to tell with our closest relatives, because there's some sort of baseline. But when you start talking about species who live in considerably different environments from us, like aquatic mammals, I think it becomes a good deal harder. For all you know, a whole lot of dolphins are saying "Fuck you murdering bastards" to the Japanese hunters that kill them en masse.

And rightly so. I'm not saying that dolphin-killers aren't scum. But so are gorilla-killers and elephant-killers. And people who torment cats and dogs. I'm all for decent treatment of animals. I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.

I am suggesting that it's a little to pat and really an application of circular reasoning to say "They're not persons because they're not like us, and we know this because they don't act like us."

That's not circular reasoning, it's simply an observation. What better definition of person than "like us" do we have? If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill. Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.

I'm convinced that the "higher" animals have feelings too, and deserve to not be tortured or slaughtered or bred in brutal ways. But don't pretend that they're people, because they're just not.

Well, obviously not, since since "people" is a plural for "human beings". This is a red herring.

What better definition of person than "like us" do we have?

You aren't like me. Given any group of humans that doesn't include you, you are almost guaranteed to have some trait the people in the group don't have, or lack some which they have.

Your definition would let me declare bald people non-persons, which is clearly absurd.

If merely having a sense of self and a personality is enough to get the right to vote, then quite a lot of animals will fit that bill.

We aren't talking about right to vote, which is denied from quite a few humans too - all non-citizens, for example, making this another red herring. We're talking about things like not being kept in captivity against the individual being's will.

And yes, quite a lot of animals - at least all mammals - have a personality, most bigger ones to the point where it's easy to tell individuals apart from behaviour even if they belong to the same species or even the same herd.

Sure, dolphins are smart, but so are chimps and elephant. And whales, orang-utans and crows. But none of them come anywhere near any semblance of the kind of cultural ability that we have.

This is a thid red herring. The issue isn't whether dolphins might build a fishbowl-tank to explore the dry land, the issue is whether they're self-aware enough that they should be treated as retarded humans rather than mere sources of amusement/study.

Besides, getting a culture started requires more than intelligence, it requires hands. Elephants, whales and crows don't have those. Apes do, and, well, we are apes.

No infant can ask for personhood, nor may others with differing mental or physical capabilities. Should they be denied personhood and the rights and privileges that comes with it?

Yes, and they are. Last I checked,a newborn doesn't have much in the way of rights. Children in general are severely restricted in what they can and can't do, until they reach an age at which we feel they are capable of understanding their rights, and acting responsibly. It's also why we don't punish them as severely for crimes as we do adults.

Except that argument conflates "personhood" with "capacity" (that is, the legal term capacity). The poster you were replying to specifically referred to the former, you responded as if they'd argued about the latter. They aren't the same thing.

A child can't sign a contract, make a will, drink, etc as they lack the legal capacity. They're still "people". The legal restrictions on capacity make that abundantly clear. What they don't have is the ability to fully understand the consequences of their actions. They have rights, but aren't mature enough to have the responsibilities that come with.

I realize this is a nit-picking distinction, but it's relevant. A person is protected under the law, irrespective of capacity. You can't go out and kill a retarded man and argue before a judge that, as the victim lacked capacity, he was not a person, and therefor fair game. Acknowledging dolphins as "persons" in a limited way extends legal protection to them, even if they aren't afforded the same legal status as a mentally sound adult human being.

I should probably preface this by stating that I am thoroughly omnivorous, fine with testing on lab rats, can't stand PETA and generally hold that most people's preconceptions about animal rights have far more to do with "cute vs ugly" than they do with "right vs wrong".

So it may sound strange that I'm all for dolphins being recognized as near-human level intelligent life, and accorded legal protection befitting said status. Actually I'd go as far as extending such status to most other cetaceans and all apes.

What is the measure of a human being? I don't believe in souls, nor should religion be invoked in temporal debates. Human genetics are no more complex than any other mammal. Human anatomy, while distinct from other apes in a few areas, is mostly unremarkable from the neck down. We're animals ourselves, vertebrate, tetrapod, primate, ape, hominid. We like to imagine ourselves as special, as evidenced by the way we write our mythologies and philosophy, but that's ego talking, not evidence.

All that distinguishes us from the other apes is brain size to body mass ratio. And even then, the gulf isn't vast. We can safely assume that any mammal with a similarly large brain in relation to body mass has the same range of emotions, capacity for complex thought, self-awareness, creativity, what-have-you. Language and communication isn't uniquely human. Nor is art. Hell, even tool use isn't unique to us.

If the only measure of value is sapience, and it can be demonstrated that a non-human of any stripe shares that characteristic with us, than damn straight we ought to treat them the way we treat humans.

If the only measure of value is sapience, and it can be demonstrated that a non-human of any stripe shares that characteristic with us, than damn straight we ought to treat them the way we treat humans.

1. we really need a test for that.
2. we need to be prepared for the implication of some humans failing at these tests.
3. we need to be prepared for the implication of some software programs succeeding at these tests.

Why don't we just leave them to their business, and keep to our own? Otherwise, we'll have community organizers signing up dolphins to vote in elections and lobbying for tax dollars to fund flipper-accessible housing.

Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?

Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?

And do you think tuna fishermen are going to stop using nets because they might catch something which has rights?

Lots of creatures exhibit some form of intelligence. Should they have rights too? And why is intelligence the only factor? Should a stupid person have less rights than a dolphin? What about faster? or stronger? Should animals which have those traits be given rights too?

Why do we have the right to give other creatures rights?

You can grant "rights" to any species you like... Dolphins have the same intrinsic rights as humans. i.e. none.

Either you don't understand what the word "reason" means, or you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Perhaps you meant to use the word "objective" in there somewhere, in which case you'd have a valid - though insignificant - point. Without it, your objections seem rather fishy.

Granting a right to one party is essentially imposing a duty on one or more other parties. For example, if we as humans grant dolphins a right to life, then we are basically saying "We (humans) will try not to kill you (dolphins) on purpose." Thus, by granting them this right, we are imposing upon ourselves the duty to not purposefully kill any dolphins. You can view it, if you wish, as a type of contract, though I'll be quick to point out that the concept of rights and duties extends beyond the legal realm into the moral one.

Why would we grant dolphins rights? Possibly because of what we feel to be a collective moral obligation. Granting rights to animals on the basis of moral obligation is not unprecedented. For instance, most animals for whom there is significant evidence that they can feel pain are granted the legal (and moral) right not to be abused. There's nothing physical stopping me from beating the ever living shit out of my dog, but I don't, because I think that inflicting unnecessary pain is immoral. Thus, I have implicitly granted my dog the right not to have the ever living shit beaten out of him.

Why would we grant dolphins a right to life specifically? This is akin to the question of why we would grant, for example, Homeless Joe with no friends or family a right to life specifically. If you approach the question from a secular viewpoint, it's kind of tricky. After all, there's no one to mourn the homeless person if I kill him, and he certainly won't care if I do it painlessly (in fact, he can't care; he's dead). Most ethicists working in this field approach the problem by appealing to the human traits of foresight and planning. Killing Homeless Joe thwarts his plans and deprives him of the possibility of making his life better in the future. (Interestingly, a very similar argument is used to justify euthanasia in terminal patients). Assuming that the scientific studies that we've done on dolphins show that they share the traits of foresight and planning with humans, denying them the right to life while granting it to Homeless Joe is simply drawing a line arbitrarily and discriminating against dolphins simply because they are a different species. The discrimination has no underlying rational basis.

I think that at least begins to explain why intelligence is an important factor in granting rights to non-human animals and why other traits are not as important. As for the stupid people comment, see the above argument. Consistency would dictate that if a human is so severely mentally handicapped that they do not exhibit foresight (nor will they ever--otherwise it would be totally cool to kill babies), then they wouldn't have a specific right to life under this reasoning (similar to the euthanasia argument above). However, I doubt they would be in much danger. After all, most people would need a reason to kill them (otherwise, why would they expend the effort), and even then, based on the discussion above about non-human animals, it would still have to be done painlessly. Remember, we grant the right not to be abused to most animals anyway, so this case would be no different.

As for your last statement, you bet your ass if a tuna fisherman caught a SCUBA diver in their net and drowned him, they'd be in deep shit. But we've also seen that, unfortunately, commercial interests often trump even well-established human rights, so there's really no telling.

I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution. Dolphins are/were quite content with their lives in the ocean being at the top of the food chain. What need did they have to develop civilization (although they are social animals), science or inventions? Humans were forced to come up with these to survive. That doesn't make humans better, just different.

My cat can tell it's his own reflection in a mirror; he uses it to see his face while grooming. If he sees carpet fuzz or something, he'll wipe it off. I didn't know animals, other than apes, could reason this well.

dolphins have the capability to differentiate in between a human struggling due to drowning in the sea, and someone flapping, blabbing, attempting to swim in the sea for fun, and from a long distance. not even humans have that capability. and this is only one of the capabilities they can field.

the difference in between humans and dolphins is that, humans are loaded on the iq side, and dolphins, are on the eq side. practically, human and dolphin populations are basically opposite twins of each others, when it comes to social interaction. of course humans are able to field some eq, as well as dolphins are able to field considerable iq. (the mind blobbing 'creating rings and blobs underwater play' pastime of dolphins, what they can do in research centers etc).

i think it is time we have dropped the late 19th century standards and concepts for sentience (most of which depend on iq, not even basic cognition), and adapt something that is more appropriate with the level of science our civilization has.

cognitive abilities are just a part of the concept of sentience. yet, we even tend to categorize humans according to their cognitive process. sentience is not only comprised of particular aspects of cognitive perception and processing. emotion concept is always left out of the definition of sentience, maybe unconsciously. it is wrong. sentience comes in a package.

Because they live in a colder environment, their brains contain a higher percentage of glial cells, to generate warmth. We have fewer, as a percentage, but more of the neurons that actually process information. So bald comparisons of their brain size with ours are meaningless.

I really don't see why something as petty as intelligence should affect this decision. Everything dies, and in the end, ones intelligence means nothing. Elevating yourself above another entity simply for that reason is incredibly arrogant.

I support limited rights for animals, in parallel with the level of legal responsibility that they have. Already many animals are granted a few very limited rights, like the right to not be tortured (even if it is legal to kill them). This goes along with their legal responsibilities as in they are not held accountable for their actions like theft or even murder, which is the responsibility of the owner (if there is one). The courts might order an animal put down, but only as a protection for the community, not as a punishment.

So, what level of rights should dolphins be granted? What level or responsibility? Should we make it illegal to kill them? Should we convict them of murder if they kill another person or dolphin? Should it be illegal to confine them? Should they be held responsible if they steal fish from a net?

I suspect much of the problem is one of communication. Dolphin are simply so alien to humans that we may not think similarly enough to communicate richly enough to make sense of this sort of ethical issue. (It also shatters all those awesome sci-fi fantasies about meeting cool alien species who are similar to us, but different, but we communicate and get along. Likely any alien would be so alien communication would be an even bigger issue than with dolphins.)

Perhaps the most troubling experiment in recent history is the dolphin-intelligence study conducted by neuroscientist John C. Lilly in 1958. While working at the Communication Research Institute, a state-of-the-art laboratory in the Virgin Islands, Lilly wanted to find out if dolphins could talk to people. At the time, the dominant theory of human language development posited that children learn to talk through constant, close contact with their mothers. So, Lilly tried to apply the same idea to dolphins.

For 10 weeks in 1965, Lilly's young, female research associate, Margaret Howe, live with a dolphin named Peter. The two shared a partially flooded, two-room house. The water was just shallow enough for Margaret to wade through the rooms and just deep enough for Peter to swim. Margaret and Peter were constantly interacting with each other, eating, sleeping, working, and playing together. Margaret slept on a bed soaked in saltwater and worked on a floating desk, so that her dolphin roommate could interrupt her whenever he wanted. She also spent hours playing ball with Peter, encouraging his more "humanoid" noises and trying to teach him simple words.

As time passed, it became clear that Peter didn't want a mom; he wanted a girlfriend. The dolphin became uninterested in his lessons, and he started wooing Margaret by nibbling at her feet and legs. When his advances weren't reciprocated, Peter got violent. He started using his nose and flippers to hit Margaret's shins, which quickly became bruised. For a while, she wore rubber boots and carried a broom to fight off Peter's advances. When that didn't work, she started sending him out for conjugal visits with other dolphins. But the research team grew worried that if Peter spent too much time with his kind, he'd forget what he'd learned about being human.

Before long, Peter was back in the house with Margaret, still attempting to woo her. But this time, he changed his tactics. Instead of biting his lady friend, he started courting her by gently rubbing his teeth up and down her leg and showing off his genitals. Shockingly, this final strategy worked, and Margaret began rubbing the dolphin's erection. Unsurprisingly, he became a lot more cooperative with his language lessons.

Discovering that a human could satisfy a dolphin's sexual needs was the experiment's biggest interspecies breakthrough. Dr. Lilly still believed that dolphins could learn to talk if given enough time, and he hoped to conduct a year-long study with Margaret and another dolphin. When the plans turned out to be too expensive, Lilly tried to get the dolphins to talk another way--by giving them LSD. And although Lilly reported that they all had "very good trips," the scientist's reputation in the academic community deteriorated. Before long, he'd lost federal funding for his research.

... than not allowing dolphins such rights to personage would be to simply stop there, when there are hundreds of millions - billions? - of feline and canine "pets" WHO are routinely denied those same rights and often subjected to serfdom and slavery. Since cats and dogs are reported to have intelligence equivalent to at least a one-year-old human child (and I observe behavior myself every day that seems to confirm it) and we normally treat those children as persons, the bigger crime is that we have this huge population IN OUR MIDST that is often treated worse than the dolphins. Hell, for that matter humans routinely still treat other humans as non-persons: when people use mental trickery like racism, tribalism, demonization, and marginalization, they do it specifically so they can then justify to themselves treating other humans as non-persons or sub-human and thus not deserving of the ethics accorded to persons or the Golden Rule.

"Human" is a type of animal that walks on it's hind legs and can pick things up with it's front "paws". Other animals that resemble humans are humanoid (a bit like saying "human-ish").
"Person" is some being that has a personality. In my understanding, a personality requires self awareness, unique character (behavioural habits) and a capacity for emotions (beyond the obvious instinctive). I would say that sufficient intelligence is required for self awareness, but not necessarily very much.

All mammals and birds that I've ever got to know (my own pets and friends' pets) have all had their own personality and feelings. But none of them were human. They were feline, canine, parrot, parakeet, rodent, etc. I have never observed personality in reptiles or fish. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but I personally believe their intelligence is below the threshold for self awareness.

Comparing personality with intelligence:
My cat is not a human. He is a cat. However...
My cat is a person, in that he clearly has self awareness and his own character and feelings.
Sure, he will never have the mental capacity to understand differential calculus or fine art. He understands very few spoken words and still struggles with the idea of backing away from a door that opens inwards.
But, we do communicate using body language. He tells me when he is hungry, or when he wants to go for a walk with me. He told me that the cat food I used to feed him tasted like shit, so now I only feed the spoilt cat fresh meat and fish. (Seriously, he sniffed the food, then stood over it and scratched the ground imitating the way he buries his poo. Then he walked past me conspicuously as if to say "just so you know". It was pretty bloody evident what he was saying.)
Also, anyone with higher lever pets knows that they have feelings/emotions. Aside from contentment, fear and hostility, higher level animals also can be sad, happy and genuinely caring.

Also, some mentally handicapped humans seem less intelligent than some non-humans (esp. dogs). But those humans are still thinking, feeling, self aware people, trapped in dysfunctional bodies.

The question is not whether "higher" animals have personality or feeling. They clearly do.
The question is where we put the threshold of "human rights". Should the threshold be put at "person rights"? Some other types of animals clearly possess good enough communication skills, caring, personality, intelligence and so on that they clearly qualify as people. But are we humans prepared to accept non-humans as equal status members into our elitist society? I doubt we're ready for that.

We are snobs (to put it bluntly). "We are the only ones worthy of our own respect because of our accomplishments and our ability to communicate with us." Perhaps that snobbery is warranted. Is it?

So, if we're not able to accept non-humans as equal to humans, then how far can we suppress other animals? Well, for starters, we are omnivores, so at least we should have the right to kill to eat. But at at he same time we can bear in mind that these are people (with self awareness and feelings), so we should not be unneccessarily cruel. Farming (a form of slavery) will have to be acceptable, as currently we have little other choice. But cruel farming is not neccessary and is should never be seen as acceptable.

Japanese farm cetaceans. Is that inherently wrong? I think that if we managed to communicate with cetaceans using their own languages, then peoples' attitudes would change. But killing to eat is a fundamental part of life on this planet, so... would it still be wrong to kill them?

This post does absolutely not deserve an "insightful".Smart enough to stay out of a tuna net... The main "sight" ability of dolphins is their echo location sense. And a net is invisible to that.In Europe fishers are required to but reflectors on the nets that can be sensed by dolphins since.. I don't know, 10 years, 20 years? Since then the kill rate of dolphins got reduced dramatically.Dolphins are perfectly capable of avoiding nets if they are able to sense them.

You've got it all wrong: It's not confirmation bias, it's the simple fact that the dolphins are so damnably cute!

Why don't YOU try telling those cute little eyes and those stubby little flippers that they can't be a person. I can't do it, it'd break my heart. But I guess you're a MONSTER, who doesn't have any of the finer sensitivities the PETA members do.

Well, I have no problem recognizing the sentience of dolphins. I could even accept them as "non-human persons", though I'm not sure exactly what that means.

But as far as the upshot of what rights should we give dolphins, that's where I don't like the tack this is taking.

Talking about "equal rights" among people -- human people -- makes sense, as we are all human and equal and have the same essential needs when living together in our societies.

Dolphins don't live in our society. They live in dolphin societies. The only right they need is the right to live in that society without us bothering them. So, I'm against fishing them, and even keeping them in captivity outside of injured or rescued dolphins. anything else is unnecessary.

by blind biker on Thursday January 06, @11:27AM (#34778808):
I am a researcher in micro and nanotech, and I can confirm this trend in my field, as well. In fact, one journal in particular has been especially bad in rejecting my articles with some awful refereeing, which I will save for posterity. I am tempted to rub my published articles under the nose of the (probably equally incompetent or corrupt) editor of that journal.

I'm going to lose the ability to mod...

I doubt that you have studied dolphin behavior nor could you be a marine biologist or even properly studied, researching biologist.

The above quote is from you, today at 11:27 AM and now at 4:22 PM, you post being the know all of behavior and animal psychology. Maybe you are a nanotechnology research specialist who develops and then implants chips into the brains of dolphins based on your personality studies measuring and recognizing "personhood" with the added bonus of statistically noting the externalities of increasing your karma/or slashdotness based on this research, but I doubt that too!

And how is that supposed to be relevant? Even if brain mass closely correlates with intelligence, that doesn't mean that the ratio of brain mass to body size does.

Ummm, actually it does. Brain mass alone does not correlate to intelligence (if it did, elephants would be our overlords). Intelligence generally (although not precisely) correlates to the ration of brain to body mass. Sorry, but it does.